How do I avoid looking and acting American while traveling in Europe?
Aug 3rd 2004, 12:48 am
#3091
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: There is no constitutional right...
On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 20:54:37 GMT, Strabo <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Every state constitution had such a clause when the
>>> respective colony or territory was admitted to the Union.
>>> Most states still do. Those that do not have broken
>>> the contract.
>>>
>>Not any state I've lived in.
>>And, I've lived in a lot of them.
>>John Mullen
>From the States, here's some examples...
>Alabama: "That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense
>of himself and the state."
>Alaska: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security
>of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
>shall not be infringed. The individual right to keep and bear
>arms shall not be denied or infringed by the state or political
>subdivision of the State." Article 1, Section 19.
<snip a very long list of states>
Seems Mr. Mullen tends to live a very sheltered life. Or one in which
he tends to ignore things that violate his world view.....
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only
prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of
freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing
to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."
-John F. Kennedy
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent
revolution inevitable."
-John F. Kennedy
"I am pleased to accept Life Membership in the National Rifle
Association and extend to your organization every good wish for
continued success."
-John F. Kennedy, March 20, 1961
"By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia', the 'security' of
the nation, and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms', our
founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our
economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of
governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever
be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an
important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in
which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his
country. For that reason, I believe the Second Amendment will always
be important."
-Senator John F. Kennedy, April 1960
Gunner
"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except
in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism
proposes to enslave men by force, socialism - by vote. It is
merely the difference between murder and suicide."
- Ayn Rand, from "Foreign Policy Drains U.S. of Main
Weapons"
>>>
>>> Every state constitution had such a clause when the
>>> respective colony or territory was admitted to the Union.
>>> Most states still do. Those that do not have broken
>>> the contract.
>>>
>>Not any state I've lived in.
>>And, I've lived in a lot of them.
>>John Mullen
>From the States, here's some examples...
>Alabama: "That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense
>of himself and the state."
>Alaska: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security
>of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
>shall not be infringed. The individual right to keep and bear
>arms shall not be denied or infringed by the state or political
>subdivision of the State." Article 1, Section 19.
<snip a very long list of states>
Seems Mr. Mullen tends to live a very sheltered life. Or one in which
he tends to ignore things that violate his world view.....
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only
prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of
freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing
to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."
-John F. Kennedy
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent
revolution inevitable."
-John F. Kennedy
"I am pleased to accept Life Membership in the National Rifle
Association and extend to your organization every good wish for
continued success."
-John F. Kennedy, March 20, 1961
"By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia', the 'security' of
the nation, and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms', our
founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our
economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of
governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever
be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an
important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in
which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his
country. For that reason, I believe the Second Amendment will always
be important."
-Senator John F. Kennedy, April 1960
Gunner
"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except
in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism
proposes to enslave men by force, socialism - by vote. It is
merely the difference between murder and suicide."
- Ayn Rand, from "Foreign Policy Drains U.S. of Main
Weapons"
Aug 3rd 2004, 1:37 am
#3092
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: There is no constitutional right...
Stuart Grey wrote:
>
> "John P. Mullen" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> >
> >
> > Strabo wrote:
>
> >> That argument hasn't a leg to stand on. That some state
> >> has gone along with disarmament means only that the people
> >> of that state have failed to oust their servants in favor
> >> of better ones.
> >>
> >> If you are a student of the original meaning and intent of
> >> the Constitution you would know full well that the
> >> founders intended that every man be armed. This is amply
> >> demonstrated through custom and tradition, the Federalist
> >> papers, general writings and speeches and the 2nd A.
> >>
> >
> > The trouble with that argument is that it ignores the
> > reality that states and local governments can and do
> > regulate the possession of firearms.
>
> Ummm. I see. Your argument is that it's constitutional because
> enough states have violated it for long enough. Never mind
> what the constitution actually says!
>
No. Because these laws have been challenged and allowed to stand.
> Totally unlike how the cross on the city seal of LA was
> constitutional for 50 years before being found
> unconstitutional, or how blacks were discriminated against for
> 100 years, or because flag burning was illegal for 150 years,
> or prayers in schools since the school system was founded up
> until about the 1960s, or abortion for most of the history of
> the United States, or any other number of other things that
> liberals have challanged in the courts. Some right, some
> wrong.
>
> Your argument is a true example of circular logic. It MUST be
> constitutional because we've been doing it for so long. It is
> so contrary to any number of historical events, that the
> argument appears to be very poorly thought out.
These laws have been challenged and stood the test. Like it or not, it
is the Supreme Court that determines what is and is not
constitutional.
John Mullen
>
> "John P. Mullen" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> >
> >
> > Strabo wrote:
>
> >> That argument hasn't a leg to stand on. That some state
> >> has gone along with disarmament means only that the people
> >> of that state have failed to oust their servants in favor
> >> of better ones.
> >>
> >> If you are a student of the original meaning and intent of
> >> the Constitution you would know full well that the
> >> founders intended that every man be armed. This is amply
> >> demonstrated through custom and tradition, the Federalist
> >> papers, general writings and speeches and the 2nd A.
> >>
> >
> > The trouble with that argument is that it ignores the
> > reality that states and local governments can and do
> > regulate the possession of firearms.
>
> Ummm. I see. Your argument is that it's constitutional because
> enough states have violated it for long enough. Never mind
> what the constitution actually says!
>
No. Because these laws have been challenged and allowed to stand.
> Totally unlike how the cross on the city seal of LA was
> constitutional for 50 years before being found
> unconstitutional, or how blacks were discriminated against for
> 100 years, or because flag burning was illegal for 150 years,
> or prayers in schools since the school system was founded up
> until about the 1960s, or abortion for most of the history of
> the United States, or any other number of other things that
> liberals have challanged in the courts. Some right, some
> wrong.
>
> Your argument is a true example of circular logic. It MUST be
> constitutional because we've been doing it for so long. It is
> so contrary to any number of historical events, that the
> argument appears to be very poorly thought out.
These laws have been challenged and stood the test. Like it or not, it
is the Supreme Court that determines what is and is not
constitutional.
John Mullen
Aug 3rd 2004, 2:08 am
#3093
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: There is no constitutional right...
Gunner wrote:
>
> On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 20:54:37 GMT, Strabo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Seems Mr. Mullen tends to live a very sheltered life. Or one in which
> he tends to ignore things that violate his world view.....
>
Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you.
:-)
>
> "Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only
> prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of
> freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing
> to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."
>
> -John F. Kennedy
>
>
> "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent
> revolution inevitable."
>
> -John F. Kennedy
>
>
> "I am pleased to accept Life Membership in the National Rifle
> Association and extend to your organization every good wish for
> continued success."
>
> -John F. Kennedy, March 20, 1961
>
>
> "By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia', the 'security' of
> the nation, and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms', our
> founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our
> economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of
> governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever
> be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an
> important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in
> which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his
> country. For that reason, I believe the Second Amendment will always
> be important."
>
> -Senator John F. Kennedy, April 1960
>
>
> Gunner
Well, you have expressed JFK's opinion, but he was not a Supreme Court
Justice or a lawyer. In addition, politicians often say things they
think people want to hear, regardless of their legal merit. At any
rate, it is a lay opinion and not any sort of validation of your
argument.
John Mullen
>
> On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 20:54:37 GMT, Strabo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Seems Mr. Mullen tends to live a very sheltered life. Or one in which
> he tends to ignore things that violate his world view.....
>
Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you.
:-)
>
> "Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only
> prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of
> freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing
> to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."
>
> -John F. Kennedy
>
>
> "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent
> revolution inevitable."
>
> -John F. Kennedy
>
>
> "I am pleased to accept Life Membership in the National Rifle
> Association and extend to your organization every good wish for
> continued success."
>
> -John F. Kennedy, March 20, 1961
>
>
> "By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia', the 'security' of
> the nation, and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms', our
> founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our
> economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of
> governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever
> be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an
> important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in
> which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his
> country. For that reason, I believe the Second Amendment will always
> be important."
>
> -Senator John F. Kennedy, April 1960
>
>
> Gunner
Well, you have expressed JFK's opinion, but he was not a Supreme Court
Justice or a lawyer. In addition, politicians often say things they
think people want to hear, regardless of their legal merit. At any
rate, it is a lay opinion and not any sort of validation of your
argument.
John Mullen
Aug 3rd 2004, 5:21 am
#3094
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: There is no constitutional right...
In Re: There is no constitutional right... on Mon, 02 Aug 2004
19:37:56 -0600, by John P. Mullen, we read:
>Stuart Grey wrote:
>>
>> "John P. Mullen" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Strabo wrote:
>>
>> >> That argument hasn't a leg to stand on. That some state
>> >> has gone along with disarmament means only that the people
>> >> of that state have failed to oust their servants in favor
>> >> of better ones.
>> >>
>> >> If you are a student of the original meaning and intent of
>> >> the Constitution you would know full well that the
>> >> founders intended that every man be armed. This is amply
>> >> demonstrated through custom and tradition, the Federalist
>> >> papers, general writings and speeches and the 2nd A.
>> >>
>> >
>> > The trouble with that argument is that it ignores the
>> > reality that states and local governments can and do
>> > regulate the possession of firearms.
>>
>> Ummm. I see. Your argument is that it's constitutional because
>> enough states have violated it for long enough. Never mind
>> what the constitution actually says!
>>
>No. Because these laws have been challenged and allowed to stand.
>> Totally unlike how the cross on the city seal of LA was
>> constitutional for 50 years before being found
>> unconstitutional, or how blacks were discriminated against for
>> 100 years, or because flag burning was illegal for 150 years,
>> or prayers in schools since the school system was founded up
>> until about the 1960s, or abortion for most of the history of
>> the United States, or any other number of other things that
>> liberals have challanged in the courts. Some right, some
>> wrong.
>>
>> Your argument is a true example of circular logic. It MUST be
>> constitutional because we've been doing it for so long. It is
>> so contrary to any number of historical events, that the
>> argument appears to be very poorly thought out.
>These laws have been challenged and stood the test. Like it or not, it
>is the Supreme Court that determines what is and is not
>constitutional.
Not at all.
Any one of us make a decision that may not be in line
with the opinion of the SCOTUS. Such decisions may even
be illegal. However, laws that cannot be enforced or that are
unpopular are eventually changed or dropped. This may come
about due to political decision OR by juries nullifying the
law OR refusing to convict.
Every juror has the duty and obligation to judge the facts of the
case as well as the law in light of the rights of the prosecuted
individual. Each juror does so regardless of the opinion of the
SCOTUS.
The SCOTUS as well as lower federal and state courts, opine for
the officers of those courts, not for the behavior of
individuals.
SCOTUS is not the final arbiter of law. This is the purview
of the wisdom of the people.
Yes, you may quote me.
>John Mullen
19:37:56 -0600, by John P. Mullen, we read:
>Stuart Grey wrote:
>>
>> "John P. Mullen" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Strabo wrote:
>>
>> >> That argument hasn't a leg to stand on. That some state
>> >> has gone along with disarmament means only that the people
>> >> of that state have failed to oust their servants in favor
>> >> of better ones.
>> >>
>> >> If you are a student of the original meaning and intent of
>> >> the Constitution you would know full well that the
>> >> founders intended that every man be armed. This is amply
>> >> demonstrated through custom and tradition, the Federalist
>> >> papers, general writings and speeches and the 2nd A.
>> >>
>> >
>> > The trouble with that argument is that it ignores the
>> > reality that states and local governments can and do
>> > regulate the possession of firearms.
>>
>> Ummm. I see. Your argument is that it's constitutional because
>> enough states have violated it for long enough. Never mind
>> what the constitution actually says!
>>
>No. Because these laws have been challenged and allowed to stand.
>> Totally unlike how the cross on the city seal of LA was
>> constitutional for 50 years before being found
>> unconstitutional, or how blacks were discriminated against for
>> 100 years, or because flag burning was illegal for 150 years,
>> or prayers in schools since the school system was founded up
>> until about the 1960s, or abortion for most of the history of
>> the United States, or any other number of other things that
>> liberals have challanged in the courts. Some right, some
>> wrong.
>>
>> Your argument is a true example of circular logic. It MUST be
>> constitutional because we've been doing it for so long. It is
>> so contrary to any number of historical events, that the
>> argument appears to be very poorly thought out.
>These laws have been challenged and stood the test. Like it or not, it
>is the Supreme Court that determines what is and is not
>constitutional.
Not at all.
Any one of us make a decision that may not be in line
with the opinion of the SCOTUS. Such decisions may even
be illegal. However, laws that cannot be enforced or that are
unpopular are eventually changed or dropped. This may come
about due to political decision OR by juries nullifying the
law OR refusing to convict.
Every juror has the duty and obligation to judge the facts of the
case as well as the law in light of the rights of the prosecuted
individual. Each juror does so regardless of the opinion of the
SCOTUS.
The SCOTUS as well as lower federal and state courts, opine for
the officers of those courts, not for the behavior of
individuals.
SCOTUS is not the final arbiter of law. This is the purview
of the wisdom of the people.
Yes, you may quote me.
>John Mullen
Aug 3rd 2004, 10:45 am
#3095
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: There is no constitutional right...
"John P. Mullen" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
>
> Stuart Grey wrote:
>>
>> "John P. Mullen" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Strabo wrote:
>>
>> >> That argument hasn't a leg to stand on. That some state
>> >> has gone along with disarmament means only that the
>> >> people of that state have failed to oust their servants
>> >> in favor of better ones.
>> >>
>> >> If you are a student of the original meaning and intent
>> >> of the Constitution you would know full well that the
>> >> founders intended that every man be armed. This is
>> >> amply demonstrated through custom and tradition, the
>> >> Federalist papers, general writings and speeches and
>> >> the 2nd A.
>> >>
>> >
>> > The trouble with that argument is that it ignores the
>> > reality that states and local governments can and do
>> > regulate the possession of firearms.
>>
>> Ummm. I see. Your argument is that it's constitutional
>> because enough states have violated it for long enough.
>> Never mind what the constitution actually says!
>>
>
> No. Because these laws have been challenged and allowed to
> stand.
They've not been challanged. If you feel otherwise, feel free
to give citations.
>> Totally unlike how the cross on the city seal of LA was
>> constitutional for 50 years before being found
>> unconstitutional, or how blacks were discriminated against
>> for 100 years, or because flag burning was illegal for 150
>> years, or prayers in schools since the school system was
>> founded up until about the 1960s, or abortion for most of
>> the history of the United States, or any other number of
>> other things that liberals have challanged in the courts.
>> Some right, some wrong.
>>
>> Your argument is a true example of circular logic. It MUST
>> be constitutional because we've been doing it for so long.
>> It is so contrary to any number of historical events, that
>> the argument appears to be very poorly thought out.
>
> These laws have been challenged and stood the test.
Proof?
> Like
> it or not, it is the Supreme Court that determines what is
> and is not constitutional.
No, it's the guys with the most guns.
news:[email protected]:
>
>
> Stuart Grey wrote:
>>
>> "John P. Mullen" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Strabo wrote:
>>
>> >> That argument hasn't a leg to stand on. That some state
>> >> has gone along with disarmament means only that the
>> >> people of that state have failed to oust their servants
>> >> in favor of better ones.
>> >>
>> >> If you are a student of the original meaning and intent
>> >> of the Constitution you would know full well that the
>> >> founders intended that every man be armed. This is
>> >> amply demonstrated through custom and tradition, the
>> >> Federalist papers, general writings and speeches and
>> >> the 2nd A.
>> >>
>> >
>> > The trouble with that argument is that it ignores the
>> > reality that states and local governments can and do
>> > regulate the possession of firearms.
>>
>> Ummm. I see. Your argument is that it's constitutional
>> because enough states have violated it for long enough.
>> Never mind what the constitution actually says!
>>
>
> No. Because these laws have been challenged and allowed to
> stand.
They've not been challanged. If you feel otherwise, feel free
to give citations.
>> Totally unlike how the cross on the city seal of LA was
>> constitutional for 50 years before being found
>> unconstitutional, or how blacks were discriminated against
>> for 100 years, or because flag burning was illegal for 150
>> years, or prayers in schools since the school system was
>> founded up until about the 1960s, or abortion for most of
>> the history of the United States, or any other number of
>> other things that liberals have challanged in the courts.
>> Some right, some wrong.
>>
>> Your argument is a true example of circular logic. It MUST
>> be constitutional because we've been doing it for so long.
>> It is so contrary to any number of historical events, that
>> the argument appears to be very poorly thought out.
>
> These laws have been challenged and stood the test.
Proof?
> Like
> it or not, it is the Supreme Court that determines what is
> and is not constitutional.
No, it's the guys with the most guns.
Aug 4th 2004, 5:24 pm
#3096
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: There is no constitutional right...
> Like it or not, it is the Supreme Court that determines what is and is not
> constitutional.
No, it is language. The Constitution. The laws themselves that determine it.
The Court offers an opinion.
> constitutional.
No, it is language. The Constitution. The laws themselves that determine it.
The Court offers an opinion.
Aug 4th 2004, 5:42 pm
#3097
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: There is no constitutional right...
> Any one of us make a decision that may not be in line
> with the opinion of the SCOTUS. Such decisions may even
Indeed.
Heck, how can a person swear to protect the Constitution if they are
incapable of determining the Constitutionality of an act. How can any person
or entity be expected to abide by the limitations set down in the
Constitution if they are unable to determine whether they act in accord or
discord with said?
> with the opinion of the SCOTUS. Such decisions may even
Indeed.
Heck, how can a person swear to protect the Constitution if they are
incapable of determining the Constitutionality of an act. How can any person
or entity be expected to abide by the limitations set down in the
Constitution if they are unable to determine whether they act in accord or
discord with said?
Aug 5th 2004, 3:31 am
#3098
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: There is no constitutional right...
gruhn wrote:
>
> > Like it or not, it is the Supreme Court that determines what is and is not
> > constitutional.
>
> No, it is language. The Constitution. The laws themselves that determine it.
> The Court offers an opinion.
So, if the US SUpreme Court rules a law constitutional, to what court
will you appeal?
John Mullen
>
> > Like it or not, it is the Supreme Court that determines what is and is not
> > constitutional.
>
> No, it is language. The Constitution. The laws themselves that determine it.
> The Court offers an opinion.
So, if the US SUpreme Court rules a law constitutional, to what court
will you appeal?
John Mullen
Aug 5th 2004, 10:42 am
#3099
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: There is no constitutional right...
"John P. Mullen" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
>
> gruhn wrote:
>>
>> > Like it or not, it is the Supreme Court that determines
>> > what is and is not constitutional.
>>
>> No, it is language. The Constitution. The laws themselves
>> that determine it. The Court offers an opinion.
>
> So, if the US SUpreme Court rules a law constitutional, to
> what court will you appeal?
The intent of the founders was that the only thing the court
could do was to sit on it's hands and refuse to adjudicate
against those accused of an unconstitutional law.
However, the courts have taken upon themselves awesome
unconstitutional powers that are forbidden it by the
constitution of the United States. For example, in the Kansas
city school bussing trial, the courts found the city liable
for demographic desegregation, dismissed the claim that the
city didn't have enough taxes for school busses, and ordered
in direct violation of the constitution prohibiting any branch
but congress from raising taxes that taxes in Kansas city be
raised to pay for the bussing.
The people said okay; mostly because the alternative was to
put the nine man junta up against the wall and shoot them.
The courts and the court's stupid liberal supporters are the
biggest threat to freedom in America.
news:[email protected]:
>
>
> gruhn wrote:
>>
>> > Like it or not, it is the Supreme Court that determines
>> > what is and is not constitutional.
>>
>> No, it is language. The Constitution. The laws themselves
>> that determine it. The Court offers an opinion.
>
> So, if the US SUpreme Court rules a law constitutional, to
> what court will you appeal?
The intent of the founders was that the only thing the court
could do was to sit on it's hands and refuse to adjudicate
against those accused of an unconstitutional law.
However, the courts have taken upon themselves awesome
unconstitutional powers that are forbidden it by the
constitution of the United States. For example, in the Kansas
city school bussing trial, the courts found the city liable
for demographic desegregation, dismissed the claim that the
city didn't have enough taxes for school busses, and ordered
in direct violation of the constitution prohibiting any branch
but congress from raising taxes that taxes in Kansas city be
raised to pay for the bussing.
The people said okay; mostly because the alternative was to
put the nine man junta up against the wall and shoot them.
The courts and the court's stupid liberal supporters are the
biggest threat to freedom in America.
Aug 6th 2004, 2:05 am
#3100
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: There is no constitutional right...
Stuart Grey wrote:
>
> "John P. Mullen" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> >
> >
> > gruhn wrote:
> >>
> >> > Like it or not, it is the Supreme Court that determines
> >> > what is and is not constitutional.
> >>
> >> No, it is language. The Constitution. The laws themselves
> >> that determine it. The Court offers an opinion.
> >
> > So, if the US SUpreme Court rules a law constitutional, to
> > what court will you appeal?
>
> The intent of the founders was that the only thing the court
> could do was to sit on it's hands and refuse to adjudicate
> against those accused of an unconstitutional law.
>
> However, the courts have taken upon themselves awesome
> unconstitutional powers that are forbidden it by the
> constitution of the United States. For example, in the Kansas
> city school bussing trial, the courts found the city liable
> for demographic desegregation, dismissed the claim that the
> city didn't have enough taxes for school busses, and ordered
> in direct violation of the constitution prohibiting any branch
> but congress from raising taxes that taxes in Kansas city be
> raised to pay for the bussing.
>
> The people said okay; mostly because the alternative was to
> put the nine man junta up against the wall and shoot them.
>
> The courts and the court's stupid liberal supporters are the
> biggest threat to freedom in America.
You haven't answered the question.
John Mullen
>
> "John P. Mullen" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> >
> >
> > gruhn wrote:
> >>
> >> > Like it or not, it is the Supreme Court that determines
> >> > what is and is not constitutional.
> >>
> >> No, it is language. The Constitution. The laws themselves
> >> that determine it. The Court offers an opinion.
> >
> > So, if the US SUpreme Court rules a law constitutional, to
> > what court will you appeal?
>
> The intent of the founders was that the only thing the court
> could do was to sit on it's hands and refuse to adjudicate
> against those accused of an unconstitutional law.
>
> However, the courts have taken upon themselves awesome
> unconstitutional powers that are forbidden it by the
> constitution of the United States. For example, in the Kansas
> city school bussing trial, the courts found the city liable
> for demographic desegregation, dismissed the claim that the
> city didn't have enough taxes for school busses, and ordered
> in direct violation of the constitution prohibiting any branch
> but congress from raising taxes that taxes in Kansas city be
> raised to pay for the bussing.
>
> The people said okay; mostly because the alternative was to
> put the nine man junta up against the wall and shoot them.
>
> The courts and the court's stupid liberal supporters are the
> biggest threat to freedom in America.
You haven't answered the question.
John Mullen
